Credo
"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones
"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra"
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche
"A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”--General Sir Charles Napier
"Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas
"Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex
Lex-
“while the French must look elsewhere for both cash and perceived regional import.”
Take a look at land systems, there’s still a bunch of cash headed to Paris.
As far as the F-22 goes both in terms of value in an Australian context and in terms of tech transfer that could easily eat up an 1000 word essay
I keep thinking to the recent F/A-22 exercise in Alaska. If the exercise figures hold true, it would only take I guess 6-11 F/A-22′s to wipe the sky clean of Saudi’s new purchase. So I am starting to think that the air force might just go for a smaller leaner footprint.
It’s starting to seem that yes the F-22 is much more expensive. But it is also a revolutionary airplane as opposed to an evolutionary airplane. Sort of the Monitor, to the rest of the Navy’s or in this case Airforce’s wooden ships.
Things appear to be trending toward foreign sales of the F-22 (or some export variant thereof). Last month the House voted down the ban on foreign Raptor sales. Of course it’s only a first step, as it still needs Senate approval and incorporation into the next defense bill before the sales process can even really start (and then there’ll be the usual FMS licensing process). Still, it wouldn’t have happened unless there were some serious folks on board (beyond just Lockheed).
Japan seems to be the most-talked-about first customer; they’re looking to replace a rather large F-4 fleet. Certainly they’re accustomed to operating top-tier (and, um, pricey) American-made systems, and have a mature airborne battlespace management platform based around the AWACS/F-15J — the F-22 should fit right in.
On the subject of the global fighter market, did anyone hear that the latest customer for the Su-27 is the Mexican Navy?
Baronger is right on. The Eagle, while kick-ass, was simply a fighter evolution. The Raptor is a revolution. Its electronics are far FAR advanced; the most often feature quoted is that one Raptor (or an AWACS), connected with a datalink, can actually guide missiles for the rest so that the opposition has no idea just how many Raptors there are out there.
As for Raptor export sales, it’s the high of our standard high/low mix. Generally speaking most of the world buys low, and with the (cheaper) Eurofighter and Rafale out there, the export market for the Raptor is small. Japan is really the only serious possibility I have heard floated. The Israelis are always a possibility, but I think they have more important things to spend their money on right now.
Oh, and for the record Lex, the USAF doesn’t believe in that F/A crap (anymore). Something about plastic jets ruining the reputation of that designation forever. The Raptor is now designated F-22A.
One plane for each of the 72 virgins they think they’ll receive.
Raptor- 120 million a copy
Superhornet- 85 million a copy
Is 30% more, too much to pay for a pure air superiority fighter interceptor with 20-30% more range?
The answer is “probably”, to be predictive of recent past decisions but is it the right decision?
ALL F-15 and 16 are gone in the next 15 years from fatigue life or obsolecense (little is really understood about that subject) and that’s a fact. What to do, experts?
There I go, seeming to defend the USAF procurements again, but I can’t stand service bickering and B.S. in a time of global conflict.
B2
I was excluding R&D costs on the F-22, which it appears you’ve included on the FA-18E/F, B2.
Apples to apples then, it’s $85 mil per E/F to $336 per F-22 with R&D costs attributed, and $57mil to $118 without.
Flip side of that evolution/revolution coin, including schedule and technology risk. We tried revolution with the A-12, but that didn’t turn out so very well.
I don’t bicker with the USAF in their acquisition strategies – although if wartime offers special dispensations, I will point it’s hard to see how this airframe will have much to offer in the war we’re currently in. If they want to spend their entire portion of the pie on a new fighter to escort the dozen or so bombers they’ll be able to afford while their strat tanker and log fleets crumble into the tarmac, that’s their choice.
On fatigue, the last F-16C built for the USAF was delivered in 2005, and the Block 60 line is still open for foreign customers. The last USAF F-15C is quite a bit older (1986), but as part of the F-22 wars they did an airframe fatigue life study and found that by upgrading the engine and airframe for under $3B they could push F-15C service life out to 2030. (Given the limited procurement of F-22s they’re going to have to some of this anyway, as some F-15C units are going to be around until at least 2020.)
By comparison, present plans are to extend the A-10′s service life to 2028; the newest A-10 was built in 1984. (Apples to oranges, I know, since the fleet is smaller and airframe/engine fatigue is different for the high-G stuff that the F-15 routinely is squashed through, but still. This, I think, has less to do with numbers and more to do with USAF internal mission priorities.)
Obsolescence, I don’t know. But there are avionics upgrades like F-15C AESA that at least keep the ball moving.
I do understand the need to prepare for the threat after next, and the industrial base preservation arguments. But dollar-for-dollar, I wonder if perhaps there aren’t stronger arguments for investing in defense areas other than dedicated air-to-air.
“I use the word ?
“I use the word “replace” guardedly, since according to Wikipedia, the programmed buy of Raptors has gone from 750 back in 1990 to 381 today, meaning either that the F-15 may well yet be around for a while, or that the USAF must content itself for a sharply smaller fighter footprint.”
F-15s in USAF service = 396.
Raptors being bought = 381.
“sharply smaller” fighter footprint? Where?
“I use the word ?
“I use the word “replace” guardedly, since according to Wikipedia, the programmed buy of Raptors has gone from 750 back in 1990 to 381 today, meaning either that the F-15 may well yet be around for a while, or that the USAF must content itself for a sharply smaller fighter footprint.”
Not that much smaller.
F-15s in USAF service = 396
F-22s being bought = 381
I don’t see a 15-plane difference as much to complain about. Especially when the F-22 is routinely going 4-1 on F-15s without losses in exercises…
And the ANG’s 126 Eagles? Will they also be replaced by Raptors I wonder? Didn’t see that in the FYDP.
In ancient times until modernity, a force was said to be “decimated” – combat ineffective – when it had lost 1/10th of its mass. Even given the greater capability of the Raptor, is not a 33% reduction in the force a “sharply smaller footprint”? And I say that, by the way, as a member of a 281-ship Navy who at commissioning joined a Navy building – and nearly arriving – at 600-ships.
To argue otherwise is to aver that we alone modernize, or that our responsibilities in the world are somehow less than they have been before.
There’s room in there I think, for the well-intended to disagree.
“…will have much to offer in the war we?
“…will have much to offer in the war we’re currently in.”
You’re right , of course, but we don’t have an AF or even Naval Air to counter bearded, AK-47 toting zealots…Yeah sure we participate and help where needed with CAS and now, ISR , but I could submit that replacing all strike fighters, 15-16-19-22, with AC-130′s and attack helos would help the cause more…
But of course that wouldn’t be smart from a standpoint of the rest of the worlds symmetrical forces we may have to face, now would it?
Defense ain’t cheap and there is a lot of guessing at the future when it comes to acquisition….Sort of like planning for college when your kids are born..tough to guess it right so early on. Snipe away at the Raptor all y’all wan. I just say the hindsight geniuses should have sniped 10 years ago…AHHHH but 10 years ago things were different …”Can’t Stop Thinking About Tommorrow…”
We need to pay MORE for defense…somehow.
B2
In regards to the Air National Guard’s Eagles:
Will they be replaced by Raptors? Someday, probably, yes.
Will it be soon? No, not likely.
Will those squadrons suddenly disband, reducing the fighter force? I doubt it.
The first F-15 was delivered to a combat squadron in 1974. The Air National Guard didn’t get any until 1987 (when they started getting F-15As from USAF units transitioning to the F-15C).
I suspect the F-15 will remain in ANG service long after the F-22 replaces it in Active service, just like the F-106 and F-4 did. When the do start flying Raptors, it’ll probably be because the Active squadrons are flying the F-22C, or some other Raptor replacement.
Saudi Arabia to Buy Fighter Jets from Britain…
Prince Sultan said, ?
Saudi Arabia to Buy Fighter Jets from Britain…
Prince Sultan said, “We don’t want to depend on a single source for our defense requirements as we want to acquire the best and advanced weapons…” How political of the Prince, spread the money around, get a few here, a few there, keep all your …
[...] Lex: the USAF is pushing the wildly expensive F/A-22 – the A stands for “Aquisition strategy” I believe – [...]